(05-14-2013 08:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 04:50 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:08 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  “By 2030,” he said, “over 50 percent of the population of the U.S. will be in the ACC footprint.”

Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/college/pitt/...z2TEyhxR7l
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Over 50% in ACC territory. That is some serious growth and/or expansion. Wild speculation from the Dude in...three...two...one

I don't know if I buy this speculation as well. Yes there are tons of folk from the rust belt moving to North Carolina, Florida, the Gulf coast, and Texas and points west. But the rate of growth in PA, New York and Mass. isn't remotely close to the other areas of the nation. Pittsburgh has a chance to really grow these next 10 years with the Natural Gas Industry taking a foothold here. A cracker plant for natural gas biproducts is expected to be build soon. So the potential for glass and plastic manufacturing in Pittsburgh is very possible. But unsure how many people it would bring to Pittsburgh. There is a U-Haul study out there that said Pittsburgh is the fastest growing metro with 7% growth between 2011 and 2012. We'll only see how long that holds true. I don't think it'll be at that rate for the next 5-10 years let alone 17.

Yeah, growth in the northern states is terrible and mostly because of the state governments tax policies, business policies, union practices, cost of living and a few other things. Let's face it, it's simply less expensive to do business in the southern states than the northern states, the weather is more temperate and it's less expensive to live in the southern states. But I am not convinced that is enough to cause that great of a population shift in such a short time.

I don't see how the ACC can attain the 50% threshold in 17 years without expansion. However, I will concede, these guys (TV gurus, ACC, other experts) have much better numbers than I. It will be interesting to see what happens. Maybe they are forecasting another roller coaster ride once the current conference deals are completed.

Maybe, they really are working on splitting off the tops schools to make a more elite pool. Besides, if the top schools split off, they can do away with the NCAA's over broad but useless powers and the vacuum that sucks up billions of dollars from hoops and CFB (remember, the NCAA gets NO bowl money and CFBdom wants to keep it that way). I'm still not sold on this idea, but it may have more merit than I thought.

(05-14-2013 12:08 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  “By 2030,” he said, “over 50 percent of the population of the U.S. will be in the ACC footprint.”

ACC expanding next to Cali and Texas??

(05-15-2013 07:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:08 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  “By 2030,” he said, “over 50 percent of the population of the U.S. will be in the ACC footprint.”

ACC expanding next to Cali and Texas??

I have traditionally been against the ACC expanding with C-list football programs, but I really am warming up a bit to the idea of looking at Cincinnati and UConn. I think the pod scheduling, where you would only have 3 mandated games every year, would mostly improve our football schedules every year, even when you add two more less-than-glamorous opponents to the mix.

The question is whether they could pay for themselves at all. Would Cincinnati be enough to get the ACC Network on in all of Ohio? Would adding UConn to Syracuse guarantee carriage in NY? If the ACC is going to figure out how to really monetize basketball, might as well double down on that (and I can't believe I'm saying that).

To me, it's clearly a big IF that the those two additions would not reduce the payments, but I think it's at least theoretically possible.

I really think the pod scheduling would be a huge boon to ACC football and improve schedules dramatically. It would also cut out the most viable candidates for the Big 12, and maybe one of the most viable for the Big 10. It would certainly blunt the Big 10's northeast gambit.

It would leave four spots available for the next round if things go to 20. I think the long term goal is for the ACC should be to establish itself as a viable alternative for Texas to the B1G, SEC and PAC if the Big 12 doesn't survive at the end of their contract. It's possible going to 16 hurts that (it would always seem to have more slots than less if you were trying to swing that type of deal). But at the same time, if 16 makes sense NOW, do you hold off to wait on a pipe dream?

Again, I don't know if there's any way Cinci and UConn could pay their way.

(05-15-2013 09:39 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 07:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:08 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  “By 2030,” he said, “over 50 percent of the population of the U.S. will be in the ACC footprint.”

ACC expanding next to Cali and Texas??

I have traditionally been against the ACC expanding with C-list football programs, but I really am warming up a bit to the idea of looking at Cincinnati and UConn. I think the pod scheduling, where you would only have 3 mandated games every year, would mostly improve our football schedules every year, even when you add two more less-than-glamorous opponents to the mix.

The question is whether they could pay for themselves at all. Would Cincinnati be enough to get the ACC Network on in all of Ohio? Would adding UConn to Syracuse guarantee carriage in NY? If the ACC is going to figure out how to really monetize basketball, might as well double down on that (and I can't believe I'm saying that).

To me, it's clearly a big IF that the those two additions would not reduce the payments, but I think it's at least theoretically possible.

I really think the pod scheduling would be a huge boon to ACC football and improve schedules dramatically. It would also cut out the most viable candidates for the Big 12, and maybe one of the most viable for the Big 10. It would certainly blunt the Big 10's northeast gambit.

It would leave four spots available for the next round if things go to 20. I think the long term goal is for the ACC should be to establish itself as a viable alternative for Texas to the B1G, SEC and PAC if the Big 12 doesn't survive at the end of their contract. It's possible going to 16 hurts that (it would always seem to have more slots than less if you were trying to swing that type of deal). But at the same time, if 16 makes sense NOW, do you hold off to wait on a pipe dream?

Again, I don't know if there's any way Cinci and UConn could pay their way.

stick to your original thinking.

(05-15-2013 09:39 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  ...Would Cincinnati be enough to get the ACC Network on in all of Ohio? Would adding UConn to Syracuse guarantee carriage in NY? If the ACC is going to figure out how to really monetize basketball, might as well double down on that (and I can't believe I'm saying that).

First, launch the ACC Network and figure out a way to really monetize basketball... THEN look at expanding.

I'm not sure the ACC should go to 16 just by adding UConn and Cincy but I do agree that pods would be so much better. Let's say ND and Texas say no (which lets admit is likely), splitting up the pods into something like (GT, Miami, Florida State, Clemson); (NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, Cincy), (Duke, UNC, UVA, Virginia Tech) and (Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Navy/UConn) would be great. I think the only schools that would complain at all would be Wake Forest and/or NC State so maybe there's a way to ensure that they play another NC school and somehow protect UNC/NC State and Wake Forest/Duke and have everyone else be open. It works even better if ND slips into the northern group and then you have a top football program in each of the other three pods to keep somewhat of a balance (ND, Louisville, VTech) and the southern teams get the strong games they are looking for.

I know Pitt's coach said he doubts ACC moves to NY, but I hear people are coming around especially in the Carolina area. Gottfried and K are MSG proponents, as is Hamilton hear Roy is skeptical and WF coach is against.

Coaches unanimously vote to keep 8 games vs. go to 9
Acc not opposed to 1AA games - as the B10 has stated

HEY GUYS WE ARE GOING TO MSG unsure of when, but looks like there have been negotiations between ACC, MSG, and ESPN to work around the long term issues. Unsure and if there will be an announcement today but its been voted on and it is happening at some point.

*Correction no Vote, but a general consensus/agreement amongst all member that it will happen. Interesting that MSG still has clause to remove Big East/C7 from their deal at will.

(05-15-2013 01:49 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  HEY GUYS WE ARE GOING TO MSG unsure of when, but looks like there have been negotiations between ACC, MSG, and ESPN to work around the long term issues. Unsure and if there will be an announcement today but its been voted on and it is happening at some point.

*Correction no Vote, but a general consensus/agreement amongst all member that it will happen. Interesting that MSG still has clause to remove Big East/C7 from their deal at will.

I imagine that clause reads like this:

MSG agrees to host the Big East Men's Basketball Tournament for the next __ years... UNLESS the ACC Tournament wants to move into the building.

(05-15-2013 01:49 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  HEY GUYS WE ARE GOING TO MSG unsure of when, but looks like there have been negotiations between ACC, MSG, and ESPN to work around the long term issues. Unsure and if there will be an announcement today but its been voted on and it is happening at some point.

*Correction no Vote, but a general consensus/agreement amongst all member that it will happen. Interesting that MSG still has clause to remove Big East/C7 from their deal at will.

^thanks! for the info again.

(05-15-2013 01:49 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  HEY GUYS WE ARE GOING TO MSG unsure of when, but looks like there have been negotiations between ACC, MSG, and ESPN to work around the long term issues. Unsure and if there will be an announcement today but its been voted on and it is happening at some point.

*Correction no Vote, but a general consensus/agreement amongst all member that it will happen. Interesting that MSG still has clause to remove Big East/C7 from their deal at will.

I don't know if non-BE members realize how devastating this would be to the Big East.

As far as taking Northeast mindshare for the ACC, with NYC the #1 recruiting turf in the nation, also a good step for most schools. UNC probably loathes to lose home court advantage though.

Well the Big East doesnt even have leadership right now to defend them, no commissioner

(05-15-2013 04:01 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  Well the Big East doesnt even have leadership right now to defend them, no commissioner

IF THE NEW BIGEAST WANTS MSG IN THE YEARS WHEN ACC GETS INTO MSG THEY CAN PLAY THERE TOURNEY A WEEK EARLIER

(05-15-2013 04:01 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  Well the Big East doesnt even have leadership right now to defend them, no commissioner

Good point. Now's the time to strike I guess.

Here's some interesting notes on today's meeting from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Surprising to me, Pitt prefers athlete stipends. Also new Swarbrick quotes.

http://blogs.post-gazette.com/sports/pit...c-meetings

Sam Werner @SWernerPG 14m
Re: bowl flexibility, Swofford specifically mentioned the desire to avoid sending a team to the same bowl game three years in a row.
View details ·
Sam Werner @SWernerPG 16m
Swofford foresees 9- or 10-game bowl schedule with some rotation/flexibility. #ACC
View details ·
Sam Werner @SWernerPG 23m
Swofford did say #ACC hopes to finalize bowl schedule for 2014 and beyond in a matter of "weeks."


So no news from #ACC spring meetings. Swoff reiterated what he said last week: enhanced bowls, possible revenue change, no division changes
View details ·

Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN 52m
John Swofford said ACC has interest in MSG & Barclays for future ACC tourneys. "We'll have to wait & see on that"

John Swofford on @CFBPlayoff selection committee: "it’s challenging to structure the very first one"

I can tell you Cincinnati and UCONN would love to be 15 and 16 and would help with the pod system as you discussed. I am sure we would both agree to less revenue per year than the other members to help keep the piece of the pie at least equal to what it is now per team etc. for at least so many years until contracts are re-worked. There is no doubt Cincy as the 26th largest TV market can help add at least a good portion of Ohio to your viewership. With Cincy and the border teams of Ohio in ND, U of L and Pitt I think we could penetrate this market big time. We are a yearly NCAA team, Top 25 Football program with ties to very fertile recruiting grounds of Ohio, Billion dollar endowment, Top Research University, Top 25 campus in the world by Forbes. We have earned everything we have by winning on this level. Please help us be part of what you all have going!

(05-15-2013 01:49 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  HEY GUYS WE ARE GOING TO MSG unsure of when, but looks like there have been negotiations between ACC, MSG, and ESPN to work around the long term issues. Unsure and if there will be an announcement today but its been voted on and it is happening at some point.

*Correction no Vote, but a general consensus/agreement amongst all member that it will happen. Interesting that MSG still has clause to remove Big East/C7 from their deal at will.

You had better hope that this is not true...........The ACC's contract credibility is on the line. The ACC advertised for bids, MSG did not submit and it's past the deadline.

Why does #15 and #16 keep coming up? We have 15 teams. When Maryland leaves Louisville comes in. Still 15. All 15 signed the GOR - including Louisville and Notre Dame. Still 15. Did I miss something? Again?